ILNews

Opinions June 30, 2014

June 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinions were issued Friday after IL deadline.

Keion Gaddie v. State of Indiana
49S02-1312-CR-789.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding that I.C. 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3), the statute defining the offense of resisting law enforcement by fleeing after being ordered to stop, must be construed to require that a law enforcement officer’s order to stop be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On that basis, there was insufficient evidence against Gaddie to support the conviction.

Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana
48S02-1406-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding the evidence and reasonable inferences established Murdock knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement officer’s order to stop that was based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Dexter Berry v. State of Indiana
49S04-1406-CR-416
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to accept or reject the plea agreement as written. Rules that the court lacked the authority under terms of the plea agreement to impose on the defendant one year of work release as a condition of probation following his 10-year sentence. The trial court was allowed to order probation after the defendant served his sentence but it could not impose punitive conditions like restrictive placement.

Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
49S04-1402-CR-72
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Finds based on the evidence the trial court could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been intoxicated in a public place while endangering the life of himself or others. Justices David and Rucker dissent.
   
June 30
Indiana Court of Appeals

Dennis Samples v. Steve Wilson and Donald & Ingrid Bannon, husband and wife, and Ronald & Edna Bannon, husband and wife
60A01-1312-PL-518
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in judgment in favor of defendants, holding that Dennis Samples had not proven the court erred in finding the expansion of a dam on neighboring property encroached on his land or was a nuisance.

Anissa L. Tyler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1309-PC-428
Post conviction. Reverses denial of post-conviction relief; vacates convictions of murder and Class A felony aiding, inducing or causing robbery; and remands for retrial, finding the court erred in determining that Tyler received effective assistance of counsel.

Doaa I. Ebrahim v. Essam Otefi (NFP)
76A03-1309-DR-368
Domestic. Affirms denial of Ebrahim’s motion for relief from judgment from the trial court’s dissolution of marriage decree.

Darcel Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms placement split between Department of Correction and work release on an eight-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Cheryl Rodriguez v. Sourthern Dunes Golf, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1307-PL-639
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Southern Dunes.

Bernard A. Burrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1311-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Katherine Fraze v. Floyd County Health Department, and City of New Albany and Animal Control (NFP)
22A04-1402-CC-62
Collection. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in favor of the city limiting the number of dogs Fraze could keep on her property.
 
Anthony Ray Willoughby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-PC-375
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
In re: The Visitation of W.G.R. (Minor Child) M.W.R., Father v. K.G. and D.G., Maternal Grandparents (NFP)
78A01-1312-MI-540
Miscellaneous. Remands order for grandparent visitation for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
 
Chad Thomas Gates v. Shannon Leigh Gates (NFP)
83A05-1401-DR-26
Domestic. Affirms trial court denial of father’s petition to modify custody.
 
Ralph Dennis Gabriel, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1311-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms 14-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Robert Birk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-897
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of a narcotic drug and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.
 
James Pello v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1312-PC-488
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Walter L. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1311-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence of Class C felony reckless homicide and Class B felony possession of cocaine.
 
Tyrone R. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1311-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.
 
Stephan Gallagher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1301-PC-12
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Brandon Scroggin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1306-CR-312
Criminal. Dismisses as untimely Scroggin’s appeal of convictions of Class C felony receiving stolen auto parts, Class D felony counts of arson and intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Diamond Staples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1403-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Monday. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opnions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT